Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Me as well. I have doubts about God often. But then i remember how complex life is and i doubt no more.The elegance and complexity of life is enough evidence of creation for me.
He would certainly use some generally accepted theories like he used the theory accepted in Greek world that long hair are female sexual organ and therefore its shameful for men to have them.That Paul would have preached the big bang theory (which has it's own glaring holes).
It says what the Word believed to be true.Perhaps so; but it says nothing about the literal inerrancy of the texts themselves.
It’s God-breathed.God did not write the Bible. Men did.
And as God did not write that we think in our bellies or that sky is a solid dome, so He also did not write that men are from the dust of the earth. Men did.
God inspired the path of salvation, men used their language to describe it.
So not God-written.It’s God-breathed.
Certainly modern single-celled organisms fit that description.The authors of the (Berkley) study were at least dealing with one of the glaring holes in the theory. Mainly, an advanced cryptological system (DNA/RNA) is required first before life can exist. Now they claim that DNA/RNA - "are simply nucleotide proteins" whistling past the fact that they are in fact coded instructions no matter how "simple" their biological make up is and that in each organism the code is so complex that it contains the instructions for creating every cell and organ in its body. The DNA inside a liver cell, won't cause the liver to produce a skin cell or a kidney cell. Even a single celled organism is incredibly complex. It eats, poops and reproduces and all of the information which allows it to do so is driven by the DNA.
Or a better naturalistic theory. But cannot make a scientific case for creationism that way. If you disprove the theory of evolution all you will have is a disproven theory. You have nothing on offer to replace it with.So they came up with the idea that the DNA came first (it has to) and that it rained down from the clouds into the ocean and thus the first organisms were created. It isn't possible for evolution to have produced DNA. It requires a designer.
The underlying Greek, "theópneustos" is actually a coinage of Paul's, a neologism. Consequently, its meaning is not well-defined in the Greek lexicon.So not God-written.
Something not observed but conjectured.
Wikipedia isn't a scientific source.
This is only evidence that they discovered a new species, not that it had come from the previously known species. They haven't documented the change because nobody observed the change. They only discovered a new flower that they hadn't seen before. To say that you know how it came into existence by mere discovery of it is circular logic.
Yes, certain amphibians can switch sexes. This proves nothing since that feature is limited to those species. It can't happen in a mammal unless it is an egg laying mammal. Sex requires complex cooperative organs. The theories on how that can evolve are ridiculous. It's far too complex a problem to evolve without a mistake creating extinction. Not a huge mistake either. Tiny.
Come up with a scientific theory that has equivalent or better explanatory* power for the origin and diversity of species on Earth, and equivalent or better application in fields of applied biology.
Until creationists can do that, everything else is irrelevant.
*(And for the record, "God made stuff" isn't an explanation.)
God isn't scientific ... He is supernatural .... science comes up with THEORIES in an attempt to explain the supernatural.
Scientific theories don't explain the supernatural. The supernatural is not in the domain of scientific inquiry.
That's because science has inherit inadequacies. It isn't robust enough to explain a process of creation.
Scientific theories don't explain the supernatural. The supernatural is not in the domain of scientific inquiry.
I said the ATTEMPT to explain .... they create theories to ATTEMPT to explain things they do not understand ... an you and everyone else knows this is what they do.
There have been and are many scientists that support the existence of God.
The theory of Evolution is not against God more than the law of gravity is.I said the ATTEMPT to explain .... they create theories to ATTEMPT to explain things they do not understand ... an you and everyone else knows this is what they do.
There have been and are many scientists that support the existence of God.
'It seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportions to space, as most conduced to the end for which He formed them; and that these primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them, even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God had made one in the first creation."
— Sir Isaac Newton
Scientific theories can't even attempt to explain the supernatural. Science literally cannot make any claims about supernatural involvement one way or another. Not until someone invents a methodology to objectively test supernatural causes.
Sure, but personal beliefs have nothing to do with applications of the scientific method.
yeah ... their "methodology" regarding the supernatural is to create THEORIES!
Well, I believe in natural selection...this also occurs in microevolution.In the context of evolution, not strict chance (natural selection is a process which isn't pure chance).
DNA isn't really like a computer language. It's actually chemistry, more akin to a recipe than a program.
As for it being "too complicated", there are other fascinating reads like complexity theory than go into the emergence and behaviors of complex systems.
Things like evolution actually fascinate me in that regard, because it's an elegant demonstration of (relatively speaking) simple recursive systems can generate fascinating complexity.
Science does not make theories about metaphysics (= supernatural).yeah ... their "methodology" regarding the supernatural is to create THEORIES!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?